Graham v. Denton

253 A.D. 910, 2 N.Y.S.2d 175, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9221
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 18, 1938
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 253 A.D. 910 (Graham v. Denton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Graham v. Denton, 253 A.D. 910, 2 N.Y.S.2d 175, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9221 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Opinion

Action in equity to compel the executor of the decedent, Kirby, to satisfy and discharge a mortgage on plaintiff’s property pursuant to an instrument made by the deceased on April 29, 1933. The defendant asserted in his answer that the instrument was unsupported by any consideration and was unenforcible, and sought its cancellation. Judgment for the defendant canceling the instrument unanimously affirmed, with costs. There was no proof of fraud or undue influence but there was adequate proof that the instrument relied on by plaintiff was without consideration; that is, the affirmative evidence overcame the presumption of consideration arising from the recital of alleged consideration in the instrument. There being no consideration, the instrument was unenforcible. (Dougherty v. Salt, 227 N. Y. 200, 202.) There was no claim of gift. The claim, based on gift cases, that declarations of the decedent after the making of the instrument were inadmissible if inconsistent with the fact of gift, and that such testimony was erroneously received, may not be sustained, for the reason that substantially the same testimony was elsewhere adduced to establish admissions of the plaintiff that she had no right to retain the instrument in question and claimed no rights thereunder. The error, therefore, if any, was not prejudicial. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Davis and Close, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Beitner v. Becker
34 A.D.3d 406 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
253 A.D. 910, 2 N.Y.S.2d 175, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9221, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/graham-v-denton-nyappdiv-1938.